Last Hope... Faithless Electors
- Thread starter Scataphagos
- Start date
Damn. I could watch Gal Gadot all day. Every day.
The same people who buy it now,the taxpayer.China only owns about 1 trillion in US debt.
False Dumb Ass.The state can remove and replace faithless electors as Colorado did and The SC ruled was constitutional.
Colorado Department of State v. Baca
Colorado Department of State v. Baca was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States during the court's October 2019-2020 term. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.[2] It concerns state-appointed electors in presidential primary elections who voted contrary to state laws. Electors who do not vote for their party’s nominee are known as “faithless electors.”
When the case was originally granted review by the Supreme Court, it was consolidated with Chiafalo v. Washington. On March 10, 2020, the cases were no longer consolidated but remained linked.[2]
The court reversed the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in a 8-0 per curiam decision, holding that the decision is reversed for the reasons outlined in Chiafalo v. Washington. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the decision of this case.[3][4] Click here for more information.
HIGHLIGHTS
- The case: Micheal Baca, a state-appointed presidential elector in Colorado, voted contrary to a state law that required electors to cast their electoral college ballots for the winner of the popular vote. Baca was removed as an elector and was replaced by another elector. Two other state-appointed presidential electors, Polly Baca and Robert Nemanich, witnessed Micheal Baca's removal from office. According to the lower court opinion, "After witnessing Mr. Baca’s removal from office, Ms. Baca and Mr. Nemanich voted for Hillary Clinton despite their desire to vote for John Kasich."[5] After the vote, the three electors filed a civil action against the Colorado Department of State, alleging deprivation of rights. The state moved for the action to be dismissed. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted the motion. On appeal, the 10th Circuit court affirmed in part and reversed in part the findings of the district court and remanded the case.
- The issue: "1. Whether a presidential elector who is prevented by their appointing State from casting an Electoral College ballot that violates state law lacks standing to sue their appointing State because they hold no constitutionally protected right to exercise discretion. 2. Does Article II or the Twelfth Amendment forbid a State from requiring its presidential electors to follow the State's popular vote when casting their Electoral College ballots."[6]
- The outcome: The court reversed the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in a 8-0 per curiam decision, holding that the decision is reversed for the reasons outlined in Chiafalo v. Washington. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the decision of this case.[3]
Last edited:
But fraud should be proven first in a court of law. Though I cannot be sure because I am not one of them, the Founders put checks and balances in place in case evidence of fraud was proven and still no one did anything about it. Fraud hasn't been proven widespread. There are certainly instances of fraud that have occurred, but the course of the election wasn't shown to be altered.
Not in court.
That notion was contested.... never got around to finding out for sure.
The electors would not have need to switch their vote from Biden to Trump... merely abstain because with all the fraud, couldn't be sure who actually won the state.
...according to the motto "fool oneself". Buy the house and car on debt and not have enough leftover to withstand any economic fluctuation and hence depend on government handouts that one has to repay via higher taxes...great business model. After all it has proven itself to work almost 70 years and 70 years is such a long period of time in the context of humanity. So much about the lack of regarder au-delà de l'horizon
Last edited:
So we should hold up the country every time something is contested without proof? That will make for an excellent chaotic government going forward. No President will ever concede if they know they can hold power by contesting the results. You think the Founders wanted that?
I don't think that's the issue at all.
When does "evidence" become "proof"? When adjudicated? Trump et al never got the chance in court to "prove" fraud... in spite of all the evidence. FBI said, "not interested, so not looking into it". SCOTUS said, "not gonna hear it". State courts said, "nothing to see here, just move along".
The "evidence" was summarily dismissed... most likely because of political motives, I say.